The high-stakes legal battle between Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG) has moved beyond the recording studio and into the halls of some of the country’s most prestigious legal institutions. In a significant escalation of the dispute, Yale Law School academics supporting UMG have entered the fray, arguing that the rapper effectively consented to the lyrical attacks he is now attempting to litigate.
Two amicus curiae briefs filed on Friday, April 3, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit urge the court to uphold a previous ruling that dismissed Drake’s defamation claims. The documents seek to confirm an October 2025 decision by Judge Jeannette Vargas, who determined that the contentious lyrics in Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” constitute protected opinion rather than actionable defamation.
The intervention of these scholars shifts the conversation from a celebrity feud to a fundamental question of law: can an artist sue for defamation after participating in a public, competitive “rap battle” where such attacks are the primary currency? The arguments presented by the academics suggest that doing so would not only contradict established legal principles of consent but could as well set a dangerous precedent for the interpretation of Black artistic expression in American courts.
The ‘Boxing Ring’ Theory of Consent
The first brief, submitted by the Floyd Abrams Institute for Free Speech at Yale Law School, introduces a provocative legal argument that was not central to the initial proceedings. The institute, supported by Professor Lyrissa Lidsky—a recognized specialist in defamation law and holder of the Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Chair in American Constitutional Law at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law—argues that Drake’s own actions precluded his right to sue.
To illustrate this, the brief employs a sports analogy, comparing the rap battle to a professional prize fight. The filing suggests that a boxer who challenges a world champion, loses the fight on live television, and then sues for battery would find no success in court because they consented to the risks of the match. The scholars argue that defamation, as an intentional tort, is similarly barred when the plaintiff has implicitly or explicitly consented to the interaction.
Suppose a confident boxer challenges the world champion in a prize fight, is knocked out on live television and, with a bruised ego and body, sues for battery. This lawsuit would fail at the outset for a simple but important reason: the challenger consented to the fight, and consent is a classic defense against an intentional tort.
The brief points to specific evidence of this consent, citing Drake’s “Taylor Made Freestyle,” released on April 19, 2024. In that track, the scholars argue, Drake specifically exhorted Lamar to continue the battle and encouraged him to “speak” on certain personal allegations. This invitation, they claim, created a legal environment where the subsequent release of “Not Like Us” on May 4, 2024, was a foreseeable and accepted response.
the filing notes that Drake seemed to acknowledge the nature of the attack in his own subsequent release, “The Heart, Part 6,” published on May 5, 2024, where he referenced the “Epstein angle” as something he had anticipated. The amici conclude that it is “difficult to imagine a response more clear” than this acknowledgement of the battle’s parameters.
Rap Lyrics as Art, Not Evidence
While the first brief focuses on the legality of consent, a second amicus brief filed by a coalition of social scientists and legal scholars takes a broader cultural approach. Represented by Jack I. Lerner of the UCI Law School’s Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic, the group—which includes academics from Howard University, Tulane University, and the University of Richmond—warns against the “dangerous” assumption that rap lyrics should be interpreted literally.
The scholars argue that “diss tracks” are a foundational element of hip-hop culture, designed to demonstrate dominance through hyperbole, wordplay, and calculated disrespect rather than to provide factual reporting. By treating “Not Like Us” as a series of factual representations, the brief argues that the court would be ignoring the established conventions of the genre.
The filing also raises a critical concern regarding racial bias in the judicial system. Drawing on three decades of empirical research, the scholars assert that rap lyrics are frequently interpreted as more literal and threatening by courts than identical lyrics in other genres. They argue that allowing this case to proceed would threaten First Amendment protections and reinforce systemic prejudices.
In a pointed critique, the brief reminds the court that Drake himself previously supported the “Protect Black Art” campaign, which criticized the leverage of rap lyrics as literal evidence in criminal and civil trials. The scholars describe his current legal strategy as “paradoxically and problematically” contradictory to his own public stance on the protection of the art form.
Timeline of the Legal Dispute
The trajectory of the case highlights a rapid transition from a cultural phenomenon to a complex legal appellate battle.
| Date | Event | Legal Status |
|---|---|---|
| January 2025 | Drake files defamation lawsuit against UMG | Initial Complaint |
| October 2025 | Judge Jeannette Vargas dismisses the case | Case Dismissed |
| January 2026 | Drake files an appeal of the dismissal | Appellate Review |
| April 3, 2027 | Yale and UCI scholars file amicus briefs | Support for UMG |
The Broader Implications for the Music Industry
At the heart of the dispute is Drake’s claim that the lawsuit is not about Kendrick Lamar himself, but about the promotional conduct of Universal Music Group. Drake contends that UMG decided to “publish, promote, exploit and monetize” allegations that the company knew were false, and dangerous.
The Yale Law scholars reject this distinction, arguing that a record label cannot be held liable for the distribution of a work that the plaintiff specifically invited the artist to create. They maintain that by urging Lamar to respond in a diss track, Drake anticipated the scale of distribution that follows a major label release.
If the Second Circuit agrees with the amici, the ruling could establish a strong “presumption” that artistic expression is not a factual admission. This would align with a 2021 decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which suggested that courts should initiate with the premise that “art is art, and not a statement of fact.”
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The court is now expected to review these briefs alongside UMG’s response as it determines whether to reinstate the lawsuit or permanently uphold the dismissal. The next scheduled checkpoint will be the court’s determination on whether oral arguments are required before a final ruling is issued.
What do you suppose about the “boxing ring” analogy in rap battles? Share your thoughts in the comments or share this story on social media.
